Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Monday, May 30, 2016

Pfc. E. M. Williams, 21, was killed in action April 21 in the southwest Pacific area his mother was informed yesterday morning by a telegram from the war department.

Pfc. Williams enlisted in the national guard Sept. 16, 1940, and until Feb. 1, 1942, was at Fort Lewis, where he was active in sports, especially boxing. He was promoted to private first class at Fort Lewis.

Sent overseas Feb. 1, 1942, he reached Australia two months later and had remained in that area since.

4. Stop Department of Justice investigation of Global Warming skeptics. (with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Sessions** of Alabama, David Perdue of Georgia and David Vitter of Louisiana)

5. Resignation of Veteran's Administration Secretary Robert McDonald.Granted 1 and 2 are individual/local issues and not presidential election material. But, 3 through 5 have national implications.

Instead presumptive nominee Donald Trump talks about the judge in his civil case (not smart since the judge can do subtle things to hurt Trump). And Republican Governor Susana Martinez not doing a good job in New Mexico and that maybe Trump himself should run for governor of New Mexico. And claiming there is no drought in California.
_____
*Rubio did a dumb tweet jokingly promoting Obamacare supporter AARP, but no tweet on open internet. Though, to be fair, his tweets are focused a lot on defending against criticism of his endorsement of Trump.
**Couldn't find a tweet from Sessions on this

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Lt. General Jerry Boykin was fired from all male Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia after he half joked in a March speech about transgender bathroom policies: “The first man who goes into the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery.” He was fired when LGBT activists demanded Boykin be let go.

[Boykin] said he was fired without warning and without being afforded the opportunity to defend himself. A representative for the college told Fox that his contract was “simply not renewed” and denied that the comments about transgender bathrooms were the “determining factor” in his firing. The representative did, however, expressed concern that the statement “appeared to advocate or approve of violence.”

Boykin received an outpouring of support, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), a one-time presidential candidate.

“Hampden-Sydney College has fired General Boykin. At a time where young people are desperately seeking hope and inspiration, you would think General Boykin (who had taught there nine years) would be one of their most valued faculty. But instead, he fell victim to the PC police,” Cruz wrote in a Facebook post.

1. "our universities are losing their souls. College should be about learning, and that requires a diversity of views"

2. "free speech matters. If you disagree with someone, disagree with them. Don't silence or punish them. Censorship is the refuge of the weak-minded (those who cannot defend their views) or the tyrannical (those who simply want to force submission and compliance)."

3. "young people need heroes like General Boykin. Ironically, Hampden-Sydney's motto is Huc venite iuvenes ut exeatis viri, which translates to: Come here as boys so you may leave as men. This storied institution, founded the year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, has decided that warriors and heroes are no longer welcome on its faculty."

Hampden-Sydney College changed its stance and rehired Boykin. General Boykin thanked Cruz for his support.

It seems the tone of this presidential race is sucking all the air out of the room as regards morals and principles. Ted Cruz was the only conservative and major Republican political figure to mount a campaign supporting General Boykin's First Amendment rights.

Too bad most Republican voters and leaders aren't that turned on by the Constitution.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

This was undoubtedly one of the worst photo ops in U.S. presidential campaign history. Bobby Knight lauds the policy of dropping atomic bombs while candidate Donald Trump nods in agreement.

Dropping atomic bombs didn’t take all that much “guts” in World War II when only the U.S. had them. There was no risk to the U.S. homeland or to U.S. troops. It would be horrific in 2016 with at least nine nations having nuclear weapons and more waiting in the wings (including a shove from Trump to include Japan and South Korea).

Bobby Knight's historical knowledge seems to stop at 1945. In 1949 the Russians got the atomic bomb. Thereafter in international conflicts President Harry Truman, though not taking nuclear weapons off the table as an option, would go out of his way not to provoke the Russians (who had them) or the Chinese (who didn't). Truman had a clear-headed assessment of the horrific danger of the use of nuclear weapons.

After affirming that the president always had to consider the use of nuclear weaponry in any scenario involving U.S. troops, Truman went on to assure the press that day that he never wanted to see the bomb used again. “It is a terrible weapon, and it should not be used on innocent men, women, and children.” Truman continued to be mindful of the dangers of the nuclear arms race through the end of his tenure in office. In fact, in his farewell address to Congress in 1954 he warned, “we are being hurried forward, in our mastery of the atom…toward yet unforeseeable peaks of destructive power [when man could] destroy the very structure of a civilization…such a war is not a possible policy for rational men.”

That Bobby Knight and Donald Trump seem to know nothing of Truman's change of thinking on using nuclear weapons is a big political vulnerability.

Since the Russians got the atomic bomb every president since Harry Truman has had to think about hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of American casualties as the result of American use of nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons is not courageous; it's appallingly dangerous. It could result in national annihilation. Reagan’s greatness was in winning the Cold War not only without nuclear conflict, but with no military conflict.
-----Note: I don’t think Trump on women or other insults will have a major effect on this election. Rather, as in the 1964 Johnson/Goldwater election, Democrats will link Trump’s unsteady, retaliative personality to the threat of nuclear weapons. That will be the strongest attack they have.

Especially damaging:
1. the Bobby Knight footage above with Trump nodding in agreement as Knight talks about the courage of using the atomic bomb.
2. Senator Marco Rubio was especially forceful (erratic, con artist) as was Governor Bobby Jindal (narcissist, egomaniac) on Trump's lack of character fitness, Governor Jeb Bush brought up the issue as did Senator Ted Cruz (with a joking reference to waking up one morning to find that President Trump had nuked Denmark). Even lesser known high level Republicans have commented on fearing Trump in charge of nuclear weapons.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

It's pathetic that there seem to be no national Republican leaders now except for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. When Trump didn't speak out forcefully against the idiocy of allowing men/boys in public school bathrooms with women/girls, none of the other major Republicans who used to speak out on such issues did--except for Ted Cruz.

The day after it was reported that the Obama administration would issue a directive to public schools that they "must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity", Ted Cruz blasted the policy.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) skewered President Barack Obama for his administration’s transgender bathroom directive, saying in a statement that it represented a “dangerous departure” from “common sense” that “must not stand.”

“America has woken up to yet another example of President Barack Obama doing through executive fiat what he cannot get done through our democratic process,” said Cruz, a former candidate for the Republican nomination. “Today, he decreed that schools across the country must allow men and boys to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities previously reserved for girls. Not only is this decree contrary to law, but it makes no sense.”

“There is a reason that we give girls access to their own changing rooms: It is for their privacy, safety, and security,” he added. “The administration’s dangerous departure from that common-sense norm must not stand.”

Cruz also voted against a provision Senator John McCain slipped into a defense appropriation bill to require women to register for the draft.

. . . Sen. Mike Lee put forth an amendment to strike out the provision including women in the draft. The amendment was defeated 7-19. Every Democrat on the committee, along with GOP Sens. McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, and Graham voted to include women in Selective Service. Sens. Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton, Rounds, and Cruz voted with Lee to strike out this pernicious provision.. . .Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, was so vehemently opposed to this provision that he voted against the underlying bill. In a statement provided to Conservative Review, the Texas senator noted that although the committee adopted 12 of his amendments related to an array of foreign policy and national security issues, he could not “in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.” “I will continue my efforts to speak out against the effort to force America’s daughter into combat,” wrote the former presidential candidate in a statement.

Update: Sens. Mike Lee and Deb Fischer also voted against final passage.

From Donald Trump, crickets. From other national Republican leaders, crickets. Guess Cruz will have to do all the heavy lifting from here on out.

Monday, May 16, 2016

That Horowitz might be attracted to Trump doesn’t surprise me because he has been an exponent of applying the vicious tactics of the left that he grew up with on behalf of the right. Like many who like Trump because he is gutter fighter with no scruples when it comes to fighting dirty, the man who helped launch[ed] the “slap Hillary” game on the Internet not only on the side of the billionaire but is ready, like the candidate, to say just about anything to discredit an opponent.

That is the only way to understand why Horowitz would write and Breitbart.com would publish the “Renegade Jew” smear of Kristol.

_________

David Horowitz has published an article at Breitbart.com which attacks Bill Kristol's case against Donald Trump.

Breitbart headlines it by calling Kristol a "renegade Jew"--a slur (like calling Ronald Reagan a "renegade Christian"). Horowitz never uses the phrase "renegade Jew" in his piece, but does call Kristol's position a "betrayal":

To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pilloried Donald Trump on Monday for his intention to take a “neutral” position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, telling AIPAC that Israeli security was not negotiable and anyone who thought otherwise “has no business being our president.”

“All of this work defending Israel’s legitimacy, expanding security and economic ties, taking our alliance to the next level, depends on electing a president with a deep personal commitment to Israel’s future as a secure, democratic Jewish state, and to America’s responsibilities as a global leader,” Clinton said.

Bill Kristol

“We need America to remain a respected global leader, committed to defending and advancing the international order, an America able to block efforts to isolate or attack Israel. The alternative is unthinkable. Yes, we need steady hands, not a president who says he’s neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything’s negotiable. Well, my friends, Israel’s security is non-negotiable.”

Then, of course, there is Trump's declaration that he will keep Obama's agreement with Iran which fast tracks Iran to nuclear weapons that can obliterate Israel and which Horowitz called "worse than [the 1938] Munich" agreement. Maybe Horowitz has changed his mind on that and thinks that strict enforcement will make Obama's Iran agreement workable. But, the question arises as to whether Horowitz himself is joining the ranks of Jewish commentators who might be miscalculating and inadvertently* betraying Israel.

But there is no question about Horowitz's disgusting whitewashing of Mike Tyson's noxious fantasies. David Horowitz claims that Mike Tyson is a new man who repented of his past and is committed to "humility and service to others."

But as anyone familiar with the sports world would know, Mike Tyson had a dramatic change of heart following his release from prison — rejected the life he had led, repented his past, and committed himself to a course of humility and service to others.

Here is an online news summary of the transformation: “Former boxing champ Mike Tyson has dedicated the rest of his life to caring for others – because he considers himself a ‘pig’ who has ‘wasted’ so many years of his life.”

That might come as a surprise to Donald Trump supporter Sarah Palin. In a 2011 ESPN radio interview Tyson made public his wish that Palin be brutally sexually attacked**. How's that for humility and service to others? So, if David Horowitz (who apparently "is familiar with the sports world") thinks that's okay, his definition of humility and service to others is quite different than that of most decent people.

Speaking of decent people, one should compare Jake Tapper's view with Horowitz's opinion of Trump's vile linking of Ted Cruz's father with the "shooting" of John F. Kennedy. Tapper called it "shameful" and made not only without evidence but in the face of contrary evidence. For Horowitz it was just "campaign mischief".

So it might be, if Trump were actually putting forward a conspiracy theory. But what we have here, obviously, is not a theory but some Trumpian campaign mischief — not dissimilar in form to his earlier suggestion that because Ted Cruz was born in Canada, he might not be able to actually run for president even if he were to win the nomination. These were both campaign tricks — dirty tricks if you like — to throw a rival off balance and gain an advantage.

"These unhinged reactions show that left will use anything to smear their enemies and promote their sick, twisted agenda. Six people are dead, and all these moonbats could do was try to find ways to pin this on conservatives, engage in race baiting, blame America, and exploit the tragedy to further their own agenda. If one ever needed a primer on the sickness that infects the American left today, all they would need to do is read the examples listed here."

Though a usually insightful, well-informed, decent man, Horowitz seems to have a Trump-based amnesia on things said and done in 2011 and horrible attacks on Sarah Palin. Certainly this can lead to political miscalculation. As to whether it will amount to an inadvertent but profound betrayal of Jews is still to be seen.
____
*inadvertent - giving Horowitz the consideration and respect he does not give Kristol
**"raped" according to Palin's daughter's point of view

Sunday, May 15, 2016

It looks as though Republicans have very little effect on national approval trends. In terms of approval for Trump, a 24% rise in Republican approval pans out to a 3% national rise.

In June of 2015 44% of Republicans favored Donald Trump compared to 32% of all Americans. This month 68% of Republicans approve of Trump, a rise of 24%. But, only 35% of all Americans favor him, a rise of only 3%.

Using this ratio, the good news for Trump supporters is that the #nevertrump folks will have minimal impact on the election. If it takes 8 Republicans to move general sentiment up 1 tick, the 32% of Republicans opposing Trump probably only account for 4% of the general unfavorable rate.

The bad news may be that Republicans as a whole don't matter that much.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Leon H. Wolf notes that Wendy's is installing automated terminals in 6,000 of their restaurants. Higher minimum wage worker cost widens the impetus to shutting no experience and unskilled workers out of jobs.

On the whole, this is a net benefit for society. The invention of the automatic ditch digger means better ditches can be dug faster and cheaper, and isn’t it great that we don’t have to dig ditches in the hot sun every day? But if you’re a person who’s never learned to do anything for a living but dig a ditch, it’s a problem.

But, politicians are lying to them. A higher minimum wage won't fix anything. It just leads to mechanized employees who don't need wages or benefits. Neither will "bringing jobs back" to the United States help things. Those are jobs which have wages in the US that have risen far above the market. Who is going to buy products with super-inflated prices necessary to pay for a living wage and the benefits that go along with it?

And technology has made some jobs, including coal jobs, not competitive any more. So promises for jobs there are both dishonest and manipulative.

The problem is only made worse by fundamentally dishonest politicians who are peddling false dreams to people who need to come to grips with economic reality. Donald Trump stands in front of huge rallies in West Virginia and promises laid off coal workers that he’s going to get them back to work again, but he can’t. Fracking has made natural gas cheap enough that coal simply can’t compete on price, so unless Trump plans to outlaw it and drive up energy costs, there simply aren’t enough people who want coal for that to happen. And even if they did, mountaintop removal processes have made it so much quicker (and less human labor intensive) to mine coal that there simply isn’t a massive demand for human coal miners anymore, even if the whole world ran on coal.

There's no such thing as a free lunch or easy fix solutions to hard issues. Voters continue the time honored practice of being gullible, then cynical, then open to even more audacious snake oil salesmen.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Donald Trump has declared himself against the 1944 law called the GI Bill that gives veterans special benefits as thanks for their service to the country.

In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday, presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump said that he does not support the G.I. Bill.

The G.I. Bill, or Servicemen's Readjustment Act, was implemented in 1944 following World War II. It was designed to help service members returning from war cover the costs associated with getting an education or training. It includes low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend university, high school or vocational program, as well as one year of unemployment compensation.

In the exchange with Cuomo, Trump asserted that he did not want to hurt our vets and that he was going to help them. But when pressed as to whether he supported the G.I. Bill, Trump said he did not.

CHRIS CUOMO: “Is that a yes, “I do support the current GI bill?”
DONALD TRUMP: “No. I want to bring jobs back to our country and make the country grow again. I just traveled. I won so many states in a row in massive landslides and part of the reason was trade.”

Though, to be fair, it has been suggested that Trump doesn't have any idea what the GI Bill is and fell into his basic pattern of going to his memorized speech when he's confused.

However, it does go along with Trump not regretting saying John McCain was not a hero and not liking people who are captured (like POW's) because his polling went up seven points. Donald J. Trump doesn't like to regret anything no matter what the fallout.

Monday, May 09, 2016

First a disclaimer. Here are the ground rules I will attempt to stick to during the campaign. I will try really hard not to criticize Donald Trump unless he attacks other Republicans, conservatives, the Constitution, historical American heroes, individuals not in politics who don't support him, or basic morality. If he's attacking Democrats, they can fend for themselves.

Donald Trump and Governor Jeb Bush

Okay, Trump is criticizing other Republican leaders. He's complaining about the lying and lack of honor of his Republican opponents

Senator Lindsey Graham

like Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham for pledging to endorse the nominee and not following through.

He has a point. It is a lack of honor to make a promise and not carry through. Though usually we give some leeway when exceptional circumstances come up.

However, the charge is astonishing considering Trump's own past life and his campaign to date.

In political terms, he has termed his 180 turns as "flexibility" in changing a position he has assured people that he supports. The linked list above is more than a month old and doesn't include his "living" minimum wage change or moderating the Republican platform on abortion (among a rapidly increasing list of changed positions that I am unable to keep up with).

In campaign terms, Ben Carson assured us that Trump was lying (as all politicians do) when Trump said that Carson had a pathology like a child molester. Though Trump himself never said he was lying or wrong about the charge. Further, Trump calls people nasty and liars when they oppose him and nice guys when they stop opposing him. And he easily makes shameful slanders against family members of his political opponents as with Ted Cruz's father, Pastor Rafael Cruz.

And there are Trump's own fluctuations in declaration on whether he would support the nominee.

Donald Trump said Tuesday that he would no longer support the eventual GOP presidential nominee if it were someone else — even if it's rival Ted Cruz — because "I've been treated very unfairly" by the Republican National Committee and the party establishment.

"No. I don't anymore," Trump told CNN host Anderson Cooper in Milwaukee when asked about honoring the pledge he signed with the RNC at the outset of his campaign. "We'll see who it is."

That's just the tip of the ice berg on political stuff, but Trump's glass house is also huge and fragile regarding his personal life.

He is a serial adulterer merrily helping all his paramours to break their wedding vows to their husbands.

“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller (which it will be anyway!). I’d love to tell all, using names and places, but I just don’t think it’s right.” (“Trump: The Art of the Comeback”)

Trump cheated on his first wife. It's unclear about his second and third. But, Trump's word is not his bond in marriage or politics.

Then, of course, there's Trump's four bankruptcies in which he broke his signed agreements with creditors. But, that was legally sanctioned not honoring one's promises.

Has there been a modern public person with more lying and less honor than Donald Trump? Hard to think of one. It's difficult to put the glowing personal responses of Ben Carson and Sarah Palin with the known facts. If the nation wasn't at risk, one would only have pity for the withered soul of Donald Trump.

We just got a robocall (on the message machine) to fund Donald Trump. The guy is worth $10 billion why not ask him?

To be fair it was from the Liberty Action Group super PAC and not Trump himself. The PAC itself seems to be a midget trying to cash in on the Trump name. Only took in $43,000 in its first quarter of existence (Jan-Mar, 2016), and spent about $40,000 of that.

So far they aren't paying any fat salaries. There's not much you can do with $43,000. But, you can bet they will start having "salaries" if they get some real cash coming in.

Also, of course, they're cutting into Trump and Republican Party fundraising. It should be interesting to see how many PACs start showing up to cash in on the Trump boom.

Thursday, May 05, 2016

My mom fell a few days ago, and we had trouble getting her up. I wish I had watched this video before our different attempts to help her up. I am going to show my mom and dad this video as well as recommend it to my older friends.

Update 2: In the comments section DavidB takes me to task for referencing Bill O'Reilly's Killing Reagan in saying Reagan didn't vote for Gerald Ford. Whether or not O'Reilly is right on that, it is clear that Reagan didn't endorse Ford or campaign for Ford. Further and to the point, Michael Reagan says that Ronald Reagan wouldn't tarnish himself by voting for Donald Trump.

Reagan and Ford at the 1976 Republican Convention

Ronald Reagan set an interesting pattern in pursuing the nomination in 1976 and with his after convention actions.

Reagan picked a vice-presidential candidate before the convention, Richard Schweiker, to increase his chances of winning against President Gerald Ford. It didn't work, but was an interesting and clever way of changing the campaign dynamic.

Arguably, Cruz did a better job with the tactic in choosing Carly Fiorina before the convention this year. Carly Fiorina is really good enough to be President--smart, accomplished, articulate, charismatic. Schweiker was a sort of run-of-the mill politician. Both pre-convention VP choices had the same outcome. Reagan and Cruz lost.

After losing the nomination, Reagan was induced to give a speech at the convention. Here's what happened:

"I was at that convention and remember President Ford’s acceptance speech.

"It was classic Ford: a little dull and monotone. Ultimately, Reagan was called out of the gallery to address the convention. Some Reagan supporters believe Ford did that in the hope Reagan would embarrass himself by speaking without a script. But Reagan had prepared to address the convention and delivered his acceptance speech. It was couched in the context of where our country should go. It was substantive and vibrant and delivered with the passion Reagan brought to his best speeches. At its conclusion, Reagan endorsed the Republican platform but not Ford.

"The substance of what he did was not missed by anyone. David S. Broder, the highly regarded Post columnist, later wrote that the 1976 Republican convention was unique in political history, because it was the only time the delegates heard two acceptance speeches. Reagan later declined all pleas from Ford to speak on his behalf in key states."

Trump and Cruz at 2016 debate

Further, neither Ronald nor Nancy Reagan voted for Ford in 1976.

"Stunningly, Ronald Reagan declines to vote for the office of the presidency. He cannot bring himself to cast a ballot for Gerald R. Ford. Neither can Nancy, whose disdain for Betty Ford was clear throughout the Republican convention." (Killing Reagan, O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 115)

Of course, Reagan did this to a man much more honorable, decent and accomplished than Donald Trump.

Reagan came back to a stunning win in 1980. Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina and Scott Walker need to pay attention to this pattern.

Update: Neither should they openly oppose Trump. They should campaign for other Republicans and for Republican platform positions, but don't address Trump or his policies specifically.

"However, on this day, Ronald Reagan is not a loyal Republican. He has been bitter since the convention, avoiding showing any overt support for Gerald Ford. Later this afternoon he will write a letter to a supporter in Idaho, stating that he has campaigned for Ford in twenty-five states and sent a million letters to back the president's campaign.

"But this will be disingenuous. Ronald Reagan did not take losing easily. He has refused to appear in public with Gerald Ford or even to be photographed with the president. Reagan's many campaign speeches were pro-Republican, but focused only on politicians who'd endorsed him during the primaries. Worst of all, in the final days of the campaign, at a time when Ford desperately needed Reagan to make a last-minute swing through the South to secure conservative votes, the governor flatly refused." (Killing Reagan, pp. 114-115)

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Over 1.2 million Indiana voters selected candidates who care nothing about the Constitution. (see chart below)

Fortunately, the Founders of the country set up a system that is hard to shake up. It takes many, many elections to do it or something like 3/4ths of the country being in favor of it. (see Article V of the Constitution)

The Constitution also makes it hard for raving political movements to gain much traction. President Obama had a majority in the House and 60% of the Senate for two years and only got Obamacare through during that time. After that, even though Republicans gained a majority in the House in 2010 and added a majority in the Senate in 2014, they proved utterly feckless as did the politically isolated President. It was pretty much gridlock on getting anything new through.

Checks and balances have worked superbly in the last eight years as well as throughout the country's history. For this reason, I am basically back to my popcorn/easy chair stance on the election.

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

CNN was the No. 1 cable news network of the week in A25-54. This is only the third time CNN has won three consecutive weeks in the last 15 years. CNN finished No. 14 in prime time and Fox News finished No. 18 in all of basic cable last week.

Monday, May 02, 2016

Well, Donald Trump's foreign policy gets more and more interesting. Seems like Ted Cruz's joke that a Trumpertantrum might result in waking up one morning and finding that a President Trump had nuked Denmark isn't that farfetched.

Last week, while Trump was looking on appreciatively, Bobby Knight said that Trump would have the guts to drop the bomb as Harry Truman did saving "billions (sic*) of lives". Of course, we had been at all out war with Japan for three years before that and had lost over 110,000 killed or missing in action and a quarter of a million wounded. But, hey, why bring context up? (Interestingly, Ronald Reagan had an utter aversion to using nuclear weapons and worked to abolish them. Which may be why he was able to win the Cold War by economic means without firing a shot.)

“But I don’t know, at a certain point, you can’t take it,” the businessman continued. “I mean, at a certain point, you have to do something that, you just can’t take that. That is not right. It’s against all, you know, when you talk about Geneva convention, there’s gotta be things that are against it. You can’t do that. That’s called taunting.

. . .“And if that doesn’t work out, I don’t know, you know, at a certain point, when that sucker comes by you, you gotta shoot,” Trump said. “You gotta shoot. I mean, you gotta shoot. And it’s a shame. It’s a shame. It’s a total lack of respect for our country and it’s a total lack of respect for Obama. Which as you know, they don’t respect.”

Maybe instead of shooting, we could "taunt" back or even use economic tools. Something a little more creative than shooting. But, then this is the guy who believes protesters should be taken out on a stretcher. So, why would he think of using brain power rather than brute force.
_____
*The commentator and text say "millions of lives", but Knight said "billions". Knight is obviously as careful with his war policy suggestions as he is with his facts.

During his years at Princeton University, Cruz spearheaded efforts to fight date rape at the school. In an exclusive interview with Business Insider, he said his focus on the issue was in part inspired by a dark chapter in his family history.

"When I was in student government in college, protecting student safety was a real priority, and no student should ever have to face the threat of sexual assault," Cruz said in an email to Business Insider. "In my own family, my aunt experienced terrible abuse in prison in Cuba, and that made protecting women from assault all the more personal."

That sensitivity toward sexual assaults against women has continued in his time in the U.S. Senate where he was one of only 14 Republicans to vote for

"It's why I'm working hand-in-hand with Sen. Gillibrand to pass sexual assault legislation for the military, and it's a major reason why I've spent so much of my career supporting law enforcement and seeking to bring criminals to justice," Cruz said.

“You have a young woman that was in his hotel room late in the evening at her own will. . . . You have a young woman seen dancing for the beauty contest—dancing with a big smile on her face, looked happy as can be.”

“It’s my opinion that to a large extent, Mike Tyson was railroaded in this case[.]”